July 17, 1908

CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER.

In the first place, I do not think I ever said that the highest I paid was 2J per cent, because I know exactly what 1 did pay. It is reported in the newspaper, and the newspaper does its office as best it can, but sometimes it will not get it right. The information I had was that you were paying the Bank of England rate, and the Bank of England rate at the time I spoke was 7 per cent.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

experienced engineer and take his advice ? That is what we did. The estimates we presented were the estimates of the eminent engineer, Mr. Schreiber, the long experienced and well-trusted chief engineer of railways and canals. And when my hon. friend speaks of it as a ' silly ' thing to present these estimates to the House, I humbly submit that the opinion of Collingwood Schreiber on a matter of that character is almost as good as that of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). The road is costing more, to some extent, as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) showed, because, though we were looking for a good road, the commissioners had given ns even a better road than we were aiming to get. The road is well built. And it is well known that economy is not always gained by cheapness of construction. It pays to build a road well. There are great railways built and running to-day which realize that mistakes were made in former years when the roads were too lightly built, with curves and grades that were not what they should have been. And untold millions are being spent all over this continent of America to overcome difficulties of that character. By making a good road, by bringing your grades down to the finest point, by giving us such a road as we are getting in the National Transcontinental, we are doing the best thing to cheapen the transportation of the country. And if the people of Canada have jmt into that road one dollar more than they thought they would need to do in l'M)3. they realize that they will get the benefit of that dollar in the cheaper transportation which will come to them as long as grass shall grow and water run.

My hon. friend has much to say, and is very much alarmed about the credit of Canada. He thinks some dreadful tilings are going to happen. I again remind my hon. friend that there is not a sentiment in his speech to-night that is not to be found in the speeches of Sir Charles Tupper and himself in the year 1896, and in their speeches of the years following. It is an old. old story of the dreadful things that are going to happen, but which never do happen. My hon. friend talks of the credit of Canada to-day as suffering. But away back in 1SOO the illustrious leader of the Conservative party said just the same thing. Now there are some foolish ideas about the credit of Canada. One respected member of this House who had not given the matter much consideration, though he is usually well informed, solemnly advanced the argument one day in the course of discussion, that because we borrowed money some years ago for 3 per cent or less, and have since paid as high as 4 per cent and sometimes higher, therefore the credit of the country was going to the dogs. Well, that is a foolish argument. Money is a commodity which, like other commodities, rises and falls in -value;

Mr. FIELDING

whenever you find an abundance of money, money is cheap, and when you find money scarce, then money is dear. Now if we want to make comparisons of the credit of Canada there is abundant material to enable us to do so. The true way to test the credit of Canada is not to ask how much we paid years ago and how much we pay now, but how much did we pay years ago in comparison with some standard security, and how much do we pay now in comparison with the same standard security. Now the highest standard security is the British consols, of which I may say something later. Let me make a comparison now with that very high class security known in financial worlds as India government stocks as quoted in London. In 1896 India 3 per cent stock at its highest quotation was 115, and the Canada 3 per cent stock at its highest quotation was 107. There was a difference against Canada of 8 points. Turn to the situation now. In recent quotations the highest for India 3 per cent stock was 93, while the highest for Canadian 3 per cent stock is 97. So we have this position, that in 1896 Canada was 8 points worse than India ; in this present year Canada is 4 points better than India government stock. Now if we make a similar comparison with the great corporation stocks of London which are, very high class, it will be found, if you make the same comparison, that Canada has come closer to them, and is often on even terms, but certainly very much closer to them then in 1896, and that is a true comparison.

Why, Sir, so strong has been the credit of Canada in that respect that we have been able to secure from the British government, under this Liberal administration, a great financial concession which my hon. friend laboured in vain to secure in his day. I do not say that he is to blame because be did not secure it ; he and his colleagues made the best effort they could. Again and again thev pointed out. that the Canadian stocks were not admitted to the trustee list, that is to say, that people who hold trust money in England were not allowed by the laws of England to buy Canadian stocks, and that diminished our field of buyers. Again and again the late government, and especially Sir Charles Tupper, laboured to secure admission of our stocks to the trustee list, but he laboured in vain. But after this government came into power- whatever other cause there may be, and I am not here to blow the trumpet of this government, but merely to defend them and put their case fairly-turn to the record and you will find to-day that after the administration of a few years of Liberal government, and consequent on the great progress that was coming to Canada, with the finest development, with the higher position Canada was taking in the eyes of the world, this Liberal government was able to

secure for Canada that great boon that the Conservative government tried in vain to obtain.

Not very long ago, and this has a very important bearing on the credit of Canada, a member of the British parliament put on the Order Paper a question to Mr. Asquith, who had not then left the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. This member of parliament called the attention of Mr. Asquith to the fact that Canadian three per cents stood at a higher price than some of the securities guaranteed by the imperial government, and he wished Mr. Asquith to explain how it was. Mr. Asquith was not willing to admit that, on a close calculation, there was that discrimination against guaranteed securities of the imperial authorities. But at all events, we had this fact, that the two securities were so close together that there was a dispute between the financial men in the British parliament as to whether the guaranteed securities of Great Britain or the securities of Canada occupied the highest place.

Now with regard to this question of increase generally, I must say that my hon. friend is really not wise when he imagines that the people of Canada are going to be deceived by his comparisons between what happens now and what happened in 1896 with regard to the expenditures of public money. The conditions certainly have changed. There was an old Canada in 1896; a new Canada has grown up since then. 1 think it was Sir William Van Horne, who has a habit of saying quaint things, who said that Canada had been living on a back street for a long time. Canada no longer lives on a back street. Canada has moved up on to the main street, and has her sign out, and the public know to-day that Canada is one of the rising nations, that Canada is becoming rapidly one of the great countries of the world. This has not been accomplished without some expenditure. Does any man imagine that the country is going to stand still ? If my hon. friend wants to talk of increased expenditures, let me call attention to the following comparative statement for the year's 1896 and 1906 :

Service. Expenditure. Revenue. 1896. 1906. Increase. 1896. 1906. Increase.8 cts. 8 cts. $ cts. 8 cts. $ cts. $ cts.Post Office

Railways & Canals, Collection of Rev- 3,665,011 30 4,921,577 22 1,256,565 92 2,964,014 23 5,933,342 53 2,969,328 30enue

... .3,826,225 51 470,869 86 8,779,677 46 555,923 25 4,953,451 95 85,053 39 3,480,217 19 7,926,005 94 8,058,620 73 14,010,220 30 4,578,403 54 6,084,214 30 26,297,856 41Excise. . Customs 806,3.32 50 1,548,384 08 652,051 58 19,766,741 48 46,064,597 89 T otals 8,858,439 17 15,805,562 01 6,947,122 84 34,136,978 84 74,066,781 45 39,929,802 61

In regard to the Post Office, note the magnificent revenue of a little under $6,000,000 as compared with the revenue in 1896 of $3,600,000. I have taken a ten year period. The figures of later dates are somewhat larger. Then in regard to Railways and Canals. In the year 1896, we only received a revenue of $3,480,000, but in 1906 we received $8,058,000. While these figures show a deficit on the road, and while they show a large increase of expenditure the account is balanced by a large increase of revenue. Take the Excise Department. In 1896, we admit that there was only spent by our predecessors $470,869 and that the expenditure increased in 1906 to $555,923, but, in 1896, they collected under $8,000,000 and in 1906 this government collected over $14,000,000 of revenue. Though there was an increase in expense to the country there was an enormous increase of revenue. Take the Department of Customs. In 1896, the then Minister of Cus-427

toms expended $896,000 and we have to admit that ten years later the expenditure was $1,548,000. But the revenue which was collected by the Department of Customs in 1896 was $19,000,000 while the revenue which my hon. friend the present Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) collected in 1906, was $46,000,000, so, my hon. friend ought in all fairness when he tells the people about this enormous increase in expenditure, to also tell them that in many of the departments these expenditures are met by corresponding increases in revenue. In regard to increases of expenditure generally, nobody expects that the Dominion of Canada is going to stand still. The increase in expenditures has had something to do-it has had much to do- with the increased development that has come upon this Dominion. If we had not built railways in various parts of the country could there have been that development? Could the Crow's Nest country have been developed if we had not put money into that

railway by large and liberal subsidies ? Could the western prairies have been filled up as they have been with immigrants from other lands if we had not spent money on immigration and the building up of our railways? Surely it must be evident that when we are spending these sums of money we are contributing to the development of the country. The needs of the country are large and varied. The west needs railways to open up the country, the lake and St. Lawrence districts need river and harbour improvements, and the maritime provinces require breakwaters and wharfs to facilitate trade and to protect the lives and property of the mariners and fishermen. At one point a public building is required to give reasonable accommodation to the public business; at another point an armoury is required in response to the military enthusiasm of the people. Those who wish to be sectional will see only their own need and not be willing to see the need of others. It will not do to make comparisons in that way. The duty of the government is to see the needs of the whole country. My hon. friend from North Toronto on one occasion made reference to our spending moneys at the little places in Canada. Sir, the mass of the people of Canada live in the little places. The needs of the cities are great and we are not unmindful of their interests, but whence come their progress and prosperity if not from the hamlets and villages scattered throughout the country and which originate the trade which passes through the great cities? The needs of the country are great and we are not forgetful of the great works or the little ones either. We are building the Transcontinental Railway and we are going to push on to completion this work which interests the whole country from ocean to ocean. We are going to build the Hudson Bay Railway and thus realize the expectations of the people of the west. We are" providing for the various needs of the country according to their respective requirements. It is the duty of a government, Sir, not to be sectional, not to think of this particular place or that, but to take a broad look throughout the whole country and adapt its policy to its needs. That is the policy which this government has followed. We look back to-night with pride and pleasure upon the twelve years of Liberal administration, upon the results of this policy we have adopted, and in the face of the splendid record, which any Liberal candidate can present to an audience in any part of Canada. I do not hesitate to say, Sir, that that policy will continue to command the support of an intelligent and patriotic people.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
?

Mr. R. L.@

BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.) My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has made us a stump speech and he has opened it up by telling us a little story about the wolf at the door. Well, I Mr. FIELDING.

may say to my hon. friend that I do not think he can be called a watch dog as far as the public treasury is concerned nor can lie be compared with the man who once guarded the public treasury, Alexander Mackenzie, and whose record and experience in days gone by have been made public in this country by a letter which was published shortly after 1875. My hon. friend refers to historic incidents and fables. I would think he might have referred to the days of old when a king and his courtiers banqueted and feasted while the enemy was at the gate and the handwriting was on the wall. The Minister of Finance pumped up his courage tonight, because, notwithstanding all his boasting, notwithstanding all the vain glorious promises as to what his government will accomplish in the future, and all the vain glorious references to what he has accomplished in the past, he knows that the trend of public opinion in Canada to-day is against him. He has referred to the financial situation of the country. He failed to tell us however, how he expects to meet the $200,000,000 to $250,000,000 of obligations which must be met by this country within the next two or three years. Before I sit down I will read to him some words from the London ' Economist ' which go as far in their condemnation of the record of this government as any words uttered by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). He boasts of his loans. He is proud, Mr. Speaker, that a loan of this Dominion of Canada placed on the London market was taken up only to the extent of forty-four per cent. He actually boasts here to-night of the fact that withiu the past year the government has been paying six per cent at the Bank of England and apparently he does not understand how much that reflects on his lack of foresight in not preparing for the financial stringency which was foreseen by every important business interest in the country, but was not foreseen by the Minister of Finance for Canada. He boasts of the fact that he placed a loan on the London market that lie had to go to financial underwriters in London and that only forty-four per cent of it was taken up.

He boasts of. the position of Canadian securities to-day under his management, but let us look at another comparis-son. A Canadian loan, backed by all the enormous resources of this country but handicapped with the evil financial record of this government, was subscribed for to the extent of only 44 per cent or less than one-half. At about the same time the Irish land loan was placed on the London market by the British government and it was subscribed for between seventy and eighty times over. My authority is the LondLon ' Morning Post,' of July 8. 1908. Is the Minister of Finance proud of that ? What has he to say with regard to it ? Nothing. What has he to say with respect to the conditions when the new loans fall

due within the next few years ? The Minister of Finance says nothing, but the London ' Economist ' has something to say and I shall quote from that journal a few words which may serve to tone down the enthusiasm of gentlemen opposite, and which may also serve to enlighten the people of this country as to the opinion which will be held by the great financiers of London of the future financial standing of Canada should the present rate of expenditure be maintained. After referring to the great progress Canada has made in recent years ; after referring incidentally to the fact that the public debt of Canada is now four times greater per head than that of the United States, the article continues :

The country in short has been making rapid progress and is well able to carry its burdens provided there is no monstrous addition in Hie immediate future.

The article goes on to enumerate the great public works and undertakings which this government proposes, and it continues:

Here-deducting what has already been spent by the government on account of its section of the Grand Trunk Pacific-is a total of not far from two hundred million dollars to be raised in London before long, to say nothing of the considerable aggregate of Dominion debts falling due, or of the possible necessity for borrowing for other services now that the era of buoyant revenues is over.

I invite the special attention of the Minister of Finance, and the special attention of the Prime Minister, and above all the special attention of the members of this parliament and the people of the country to tlie words which follow :

This, it must be allowed, is a staggering outlook. Instead of economizing the govern. ment has gone on increasing debt and expenditure as a means of mitigating depression ; always a risky policy.

And in the face of that opinion from an impartial and well informed. source-because the London ' Economist ' is recognized as one of the greatest financial authorities in the world-the Minister of Finance en-tei'taius this House with a stump speech, and he gives not one word of information as to how these enormous obligations will be discharged. I was amazed that a gentleman occupying his position should not in the course of an hours' speech give one word of information to the people of Canada as to how these enormous burdens are to be met in the future. Not a word of comment on them, not a word of explanation, not a word as to provision for the future, but many words in idle taunts against some half dozen members on this side of the House who had asked for legitimate expenditure of public monevs in their constituencies. Sir. we on this side of the House have not objected and do not object 4274

to proper and legitimate expenditures, but we do object to the expenditures of this government in countless instances for the past ten or twelve years for purposes which are not in the public interest and which the Minister of Finance knew were not in the public interest when he sanctioned and authorized them. I was told of one instance, out of hundreds in his own constituency, where an opponent of the Minister of Finance at an election in his county went to a certain voter and inquired as to how he intended to vote and this gentleman who had previously supported the Minister of Finance was not well satisfied. Why, he said, Mr. Fielding means well; he has built this breakwater as a means of giving more employment but he knew and we all knew that it was of no possible use, and why did not Mr. Fielding take that money and divide it amongst us. I say we do not object to legitimate expenditure but we do object to middlemen's profits. The Minister of Finance has declared that there is a new Canada to-day, a new Canada which was not born until after 1896. Weil, Mr. Speaker, there is a new Canada and there is a new sign at the door of almost every department in the public service, and it*is a sign to the middleman : Apply here. That invitation to the middleman has not been neglected by that very numerous class, and they have been well rewarded.

The hon. gentleman referred to a great many subjects in the course of his speech, but he omitted to refer to a great many more. To a certain extent he dealt with one or two important subjects, but he dealt with tlthm in a small way. He spoke of the enormous expenditure by the government of Canada in recent years, hut he did not mention the fact that the government has taken out of the pockets of the people during the past twelve years $252,000,000 more than the taxation would have amounted to upon the basis that existed in 1896. And where has this money gone ? Look around this country and point me to any great enterprise that has been completed and paid for. I admit that something has been done by the government in improving the canals, in continuation of a policy initiated by their Conservative predecessors. I admit that the Intercolonial has been extended to Montreal, that some public buildings have been erected through the country, and that something has been done for the St. Lawrence route. I do not desire to minimize in the least anything the government has done in the way of legitimate expenditure for public works, but look at the great public works that are now proposed by the government and which have not been paid for, or paid for in only small part. Look at the Transcontinental Railway : it will cost nearly $200,000,000 of which we have paid up to the present time only $26,000,000. Look at the Geor-

gian bay canal, which these hon. gentlemen flaunt before the country whenever they think it expedient to do so ; look at the Welland canal which they are proposing to build, in their speeches out of parliament if not in parliament ; look at the necessary but unaccomplished development of our ports ; look at the proposal for building the Hudson Bay Railway; look at dozens of other great and important and necessary public works in this country, the expenditures on which the country will have to face during the next few years, and ask yourselves whether or not, having regard to the enormous increase of taxatiou within the past twelve years, the country has received any fair and adequate return for that money which has come out of the pockets of its taxpayers.

My hon. friend dealt among other things with the Transcontinental Railway. He did not dwell upon it to any very great extent ; but I desire to say one or two words with regard to it, for the purpose of placing before the people of this country the ideas of the Finance Minister and the principles upon which the government propose to deal with capital expenditure. In a recent debate in this House my hon. friend was good enough to refer to some statements made by me as the cost of that road as ' monstrous representations ' or some similar phrase, and I think it is well to look a little at the cost of that road and at the views of the Minister of Finance with regard to it. What is the position which we take with regard to the cost of that road ? We point out in the first place that whereas the Minister of Finance estimated the cost of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton at $51,300,000, it is now admitted by the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance that without taking into consideration interest, or terminals, or anything execept the bare cost of the road it will amount to $114,500,000. X take that as the cost of the road to the country, because some one must pay for that road, and there is no one to pay for it, so far as I am aware, except the people of this country. The Minister of Finance says that that is a complete mistake and a monstrous statement to place before the people of this country. In order not to do him injustice, I will use his own words :

Let me say at once that it is a monstrous statement to say that that represents the cost of that road to Canada.

And he concludes his sentence by saying:

Therefore you must strike it out entirely.

of Finance estimated, or $114,500,000, as the reality proves. Further than that, if you are to strike out that item entirely, as the Minister of Finance argues, then it would not make the slightest difference to the people of this country whether the road cost $250,000,000, and therefore all inquiry into Major Hodgins' charges or into the Grand Trunk Pa.cific complaints is utterly idle. Would any one imagine that these were sober words proceeding from the mouth of the Minister of Finance of Canada. One would imagine that language of that kind could only come from some person who was entirely reckless or regardless of his words and absolutely void of any responsibility for the effect they produce. But mv hon. friend went further. He said that interest on construction should be struck out for the same reason. Therefore it necessarily follows that it makes not the slightest difference to the people of this country whether they pay 10 per cent or 3 per cent on the cost of construction. Does the Minister of Finance or anyone else imagine that the people- of this country can be deceived by an argument of that kind ? I concur in the view that has been taken by many gentlemen on this side of the House that in placing the cost of the National Transcontinental Railway at about $192,000,000, I have placed it very much below the mark ; that when the people of this country come to foot the bill, it will be found that the amount which I named, and which as the hon. member for North Toronto truly says is only an estimate, will be found very much below the mark.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather a grave situation that confronts the people of Canada to-day. My hon. friend boasts of bis revenues. Let me read one or two further paragraphs from the article in the London ' Economist ' to which I alluded a moment ao-o. After dealing with the attemptswhich have been made to settle the great northern portions of this country the article uses this language :

The tendency is to push railways further and further north into the solitudes lying above the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, where development even under the most favourable circumstances, is bound to be slow; and schemes are actually on foot for invading Labrador and TJngara. The higher price we h-ave to pay for money in England may deter the federal and provincial governments from voting cash subsidies to such projects, but some of them are certain to obtain guarantees, which may easily prove embarrassing.

' Let us look at that for a moment. In considering the cost of the Transcontinental Railway you must strike out that item entirely ; what follows ? This follows : That it makes not the slightest difference to this country whether that road costs $51,300,000 as the Minister Mr. R. L BORDEN.

My hou. friend the Minister of Finance puts to one side with a wave of his hand the liabilities which this country has assumed aud which it is proposing to assume in respect to these guarantees of great undertakings. That is not the view that is taken by- the article I have quoted

from this great financial journal, which declares that these guarantees may well prove embarrassing. The Minister of Finance has a different outlook and a different view entirely to that entertained with regard to these conditions by this great financial journal. Further on in the same article it says :

Hereafter we are likely to get into trouble over the government end of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Many in parliament are of opinion that the company, which has agreed to pay an annual rental equal to 3 per cent on cost for this portion, will be obliged to back out of its bargain. It does not begin paying rent till some time after the completion of the road, but recent explorations have not revealed any great timber or mineral wealth along the route between Winnipeg and Quebec, whilst the division from Quebec to Moncton can hardly be remunerative in view of the competition of the Intercolonial, a government line barely meeting operating expenses. On all sides it is felt that the government should have been content with the company's original design, to begin at North Bay and go on bo the Pacific. North Bay being a terminal of the Grand Trunk proper. Unfortunately, the government yielded to party and sectional pressure.

And this Is comment from a great financial journal upon the action of that gentleman who to-night boasted that this government was never under any conditions subject to sectional prejudices. The article continues as follows :

The company intended, of course, to live honourably up to its covenant, but circumstances may force it sooner or later to ask to be relieved of the stretch of 1,000 miles from Moncton to North Bay-such, at least, is the growing impression, in which event Canada will be saddled with another white elephant. This, however, is a matter for the future. I mention it merely to strengthen the argument that we had better go slow, and let the remote north remain unopened till we have fulfilled the obligatons, direct or incidental, undertaken in behalf of other parts of the Dominion.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

Would my hon. friend mind sending the paper to me ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

The hon. gentleman has stated this is the comment of a great financial journal, he has given the impression' that it was a statement by the editor. I have not opened the paper yet hut I do not believe the article was by the editor at all.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

It was from the Ottawa correspondent of that journal.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

I took down the words, the hon. member spoke of the comment of a great English journal and he has presented to this House an article by a correspondent

and represented it to be the comment of the London ' Economist.

Mr. R, L. BORDEN. It is comment found in the columns of that great financial journal and it is the comment of their Ottawa correspondent who has been In exceedingly close touch with this government and who announces in that very article that the government is going to undertake the construction of the Hudson Bay railroad and who wrote the article at a time when the government intended to undertake the building of that road and to embark on it this session.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

The hon. member did not say it was a correspondent, he said it was the comment of this great London financial journal and it was not until I asked him to send the paper to me that he made any allusion to the correspondent.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

The article was at the hon. gentleman's disposal at any time during my speech and I say it is the comment of the journal to which I allude, found in its columns.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

The hon. member knows that is not fair, there is all the difference in the world between the comment of a journal and the comment of a correspondent. I offer no opinion as to whether the correspondent is wise or not, the editorial of a great paper is one thing, the opinion of a correspondent is another.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

My hon. friend seems to be very familiar with this correspondent. I do not know whether it was any one in close touch with the hon. member who wrote it.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

Not to my knowledge.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

I understand the gentleman has been in close touch with the government in the last ten years. It is perfectly obvious he was in close enough touch to know the intention of this government to build the Hudson Bay Railway immediately, although that intention seems to have been modified to a considerable extent in the last three or four weeks.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
LIB

James Conmee

Liberal

Mr. CONMEE.

Does the hon. gentleman agree with the article ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

What part of it ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
LIB

James Conmee

Liberal

Mr. CONMEE.

The whole Of it. For instance does he agree that the road should have been built to North Bay and no further ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

I shall read some portions with which I do agree.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
LIB

Onésiphore Ernest Talbot

Liberal

Mr. TALBOT.

Mr. Farrer salaried by the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

I was under the impression that Mr. Farrer was a good deal closer to the government than to the Can-

adian Pacific Railway but my hon. friend with his superior information will no doubt correct me in regard to that.

Here, deducting what has already been spent by the government on account of its section of the Grand Trunk Pacific, is a total of not far from $200,000,000 to be raised in London before long, to say nothing of the considerable aggregate of Dominion debts falling due, or of the possible necessity for borrowing for other services now that the era of buoyant revenue is over.

I agree with that. What does the hon. member for Rainy River say, does lie agree with it ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL REVIEW.
Permalink

July 17, 1908